Ron Paul’s ‘Principles’

I’m tired of hearing Ron Paul referred to as the “principled” candidate.

For one thing, men of principle do not make money by having racists tracts published in their name.

I’ve been following Paul a long time. And I can say that Ron Paul never does the hard, right thing. He always does the easy, opportunistic thing. In the 80s and 90s, that meant publishing paranoid, racist tracts to make money. In the 00s and 10s, that’s been grandiose pontificating, pandering to a liberal crowd desperate for an anti-Bush Republican and grabbing all the pork he can – all the while posing as a statesman that the “system” can’t handle.

Politicians of principle do the hard work of enacting their favored principles into law. Paul doesn’t do that. He introduces legislation that has no chance of passing and never makes it out of committee. He votes ‘No’ on everything because he knows his District will keep electing him because (a) he’s not a Democrat and (b) he’s really, really good at making sure that lots and lots of pork makes it into his district.

Politicians of principle recognize that democratic politics involves process, not grandstanding. It involves debating, compromising, and working to pass legislation that, while it might not be perfect, is better than the status quo. A real man of principle, who wants to see the law make things better the way he sees it, rolls up his sleeves and gets to the hard work, with all of the frustrations and compromises that that entails. Which means dealing with small steps and the occasional setback in order to play the long game.

Ron Paul is not a man of principle. He has no interest in doing any of the hard work it takes to put his ideas into practice. He just wants to live comfortably on his royalties and government paychecks as he grandstands against the very Federal government without whom he’d be much poorer.

I had a long list of it in an earlier thread, I linked to the Opensecrets listings for Ron Paul’s pork-barrel earmark requests for the years 2010, 2009, and 2008.

The “open secret” of how it works is this: Ron Paul will take a bill he knows is overwhelmingly going to pass – military spending, or something else that’s going to pass with 80% or greater support for whatever the primary bit is. He attaches his pork-barrel earmarks to these bills.

Then he votes against the bills, knowing that he’s overwhelmingly in the minority. Best of both worlds: everybody else sends a bunch of pork to his district, and he gets to claim he “voted against” a bunch of bills with earmarks in them.Report

The counterfactual by which you evaluate Paul’s legislative career is unfair. You make it sound as though there all kinds of potential coalition partners in Congress who would like to move policy in the same direction as Paul, but just not as far as he does. That’s just not true. The overwhelming majority of Congresspersons, on nearly all issues, want to move the status quo in the opposite direction from Paul. When that’s the case, there’s nothing to compromise over. Victories for Paul mean losses for the others, and vice versa.

In order to see his ideas become reality, Paul first needs better peers in Congress, and the only way to get them is by changing minds out in the public and building a political movement around your ideas. That’s the really hard work of politics, not tactical skill in horsetrading. And Paul, by just about standard, has excelled at this (especially since 2008), largely owing to his refusal to compromise. That’s what people like about him, that’s why people give him money, that’s why more people are giving him a hearing than ever before, and that’s why (hopefully) he’ll someday have some legislative partners who actually share his goals.Report

Does it suggest anything to you, when you realize that Ron Paul has been a vanity candidate for president for 20 years now – and there’s no sign of a national appetite for more legislators like him? Could it possibly be that the American people just don’t think cranky “libertarianism” is worth a second look?Report

So, in other words, your contribution to this conversation is “ESAD, libertarians.” Much appreciated. The sarcastic, patronizing tone, too.

At any rate, whatever a “national appetite” is, the fundraising statistics and the national polls for Paul’s candidacy pretty clearly indicate that it’s headed in the right direction. And at this stage of the game, that’s the point.Report

Again, like what? I don’t understand this dismissive attitude, when you can’t seem to even provide an example of the sort of thing he ought to be doing. Name a way in which Ron Paul could have compromised with existing Congresspersons so as to move public policy in a more libertarian direction, but declined to do so, and then your critique will at least make some sense.Report

“Paul doesn’t do that. He introduces legislation that has no chance of passing and never makes it out of committee.”

Like his Audit the Fed bill, co-sponsored with Barney Frank? I’d say that, more than anything else, is an example of the kind of legislation you’ll see a President Paul introduce. And it’s damn good legislation. The Fed should be transparent.

“. . . criticizing Paul for participating in the normal way to get funding for projects in his district is kind of like criticizing libertarians who don’t believe the FDA should regulate food for buying food that’s regulated by the FDA.”

I agree 100 percent with this statement, and it highlights a pretty nasty inconsistency by the original author. Playing the pork-barrel game in order to stay elected (when your replacement would do the exact same thing, and when the spending would just go to somebody else is you refused it) is somehow beyond the pale to Mr. Knapp, even though it’s just a concession to political reality. But in every other way, the willingness to make concessions to political reality (e.g. compromise your principles) apparently constitutes the highest virtue one can practice in public life.

“The Audit the Fed bill is a rare exception in a career that’s done virtually nothing to make life better for the country.”

Name for me a single area of public policy that is presently ripe for legislation moving from the status quo to a more libertarian policy, if only Rep. Paul weren’t so stubbornly immune to compromise.

There aren’t any — you’re not only shedding crocodile tears, you’re shedding crocodile tears over an impossible counterfactual. If Joe wants a more libertarian policy than the status quo, and Mike wants a less libertarian policy than the status quo, then there’s nothing for Joe and Mike to compromise over. It’s a zero-sum situation. Only when both people agree on the direction of the change to be pursued in the first place can compromise occur.

The vast majority of Congresspersons don’t want to change things in the same direction that Paul does — and so, he gives speeches, and he raises money, and he builds an organization, which is what you have to do to get actual legislative partners with whom you can compromise.first change the composition of Congress, since any kind of progress towards his goals is impossible with the current one.Report

He apparently is quite successful at getting funding for projects in his district; i.e. representing his constituents. That he has generally failed to introduce bills to create national projects or special agencies that employ 500,000 people is evidence that he does not support the creation of such institutions or that he thinks the Federal government is beyond the pale. In fact, he votes against every such bill that crosses his desk, consistently.

That all the other legislation he’s introduced is laughable reveals more about where the other 533 legislators want to take the country. Granted, withdrawing from the U.N. is an absurd idea, but you can’t say it’s unprincipled.Report

Your comparison of Democrats and dogs is unintentionally apt: well-disciplined dogs will do whatever their masters tell them to do, just as well-disciplined Congressional Democrats will do whatever Congressional Republicans tell them to do. The real funny part is that whenever a particular legislation turns out to be nothing but a great big rotten fart, the Republicans just point their fingers at the Democrats and say the dog did it.Report

Christopher, this is a surprisingly facile comment coming from you. Anyone who has been paying the slightest glimmer of attention to Congress over the past three years can see that Congressional Democrats have not been the lap-dogs of their Republican counterparts. There are numerous examples of legislation that passed with no Republican support whatsoever. I have no idea what you’re basing your statement on, but it’s not consistent with the reality I’ve been observing.Report

This is pretty strong evidence that Ron Paul actually DID write those racist newsletters. Either that or his ghostwriters were up on the latest OB-GYN-centric medical journals.

Supporting Bobby Fischer isn’t really a good way to show that you’re not a racist, either. The man was an anti-semite like few in the world have been since a guy named Adolf shot himself in the head on April 30, 1945.Report

1. Nothing says pandering to liberals like extreme opposition to entitlement programs and housing subsidies. Liberals love a man who will stand up and call taxing and spending on welfare a violent invasion of property rights and a moral wrong. I mean, Paul Ryan pushes grannies off a cliff, but Ron Paul’s a fucking saint, man.

2. Ron Paul has been a big supporter of earmarking since he became a congressman as his constitutional reverence would dictate. This just remains a “Gotcha” point among his detractors who tend to doze off when he explains why he does what he does.

3. Your “Politicians of principle” point is so vapid and skewed towards “We gotta do something” big government, that I can’t fathom any libertarian ever being principled to you. So let me explain something, in our current political climate, a principled libertarian is going to be grandstanding and voting “No” A LOT.

4. You don’t even mention his glaring abandonment of principle on an abortion ban.Report

” A real man of principle, who wants to see the law make things better the way he sees it, rolls up his sleeves and gets to the hard work, with all of the frustrations and compromises that that entails. ”

That’s really been working well for us. I bet NDAA took some “hard work” and “compromise” from some real “principled” politicians in order to get it passed, and I’m sure it will “make things better” for all of us.

Ron Paul not principled? Ron Paul “pandering to liberals” in the 00’s and 10’s? The man has never changed his convictions, nor his message. People are starting to finally listen to what the man has to say–policies he’s supported for 30+ years. But I guess once people from both sides of the aisle (as if this old dogma of bipartisanship is anything more than semantic nonsense by now) start finally giving you your due, well I guess that’s considered “pandering.”

I respect your opinion and acknowledge your clarity, but to say RP is unprincipled seems to be a desperate cry for some reader attention, ie, some page views/comments. And I guess it worked, at least for me!

If Ron Paul has no principles, then what does that make the rest of us? Oh, and as for this “racism” nonsense that the media just loves to brood over for the sake of upholding their journalistic obligations (what a joke, talk about lacking principles):

I’m 50/50 on your first point, however I don’t think your second point makes any sense at all. It’s his consistency that has given him (and his ideas) credibility in the first place. Decades of sticking to his principles has him in first place in Iowa. All in all, I would say he’s played “the long game” extraordinarily well.Report

I’ve read this critique, or something like it, in the past. Why then, I ask, do I think a Paul presidency would make a wonderful, a delightful change in governance in Washington City? Would he betray republican principles and continue Barry’s K-M, commie dem, policies? I don’t think so. I really do think a Paul Administration would be a refreshing change, though he’d alternatively drive the commie-dems and the conservatives nuts!Report

That’s the real issue here, and that’s why Mr. Knapp’s original post is nothing but one big case of crocodile tears. He wouldn’t like if Ron Paul had achieved things in line with his principles, but will criticize him for not doing it anyway.

The better way of making this point would be to say “swap out ‘Paul’ with any of the other candidates for the GOP nomination currently polling over 5%. Do your answers change?”

I view Paul as more of a wild card on these specific questions than the other GOP candidates, if only because the set of “people with something approximating Paul’s worldview capable of getting confirmed to a major cabinet position” is essentially null. For most of these positions, he’d have to nominate either a died in the wool liberal or a die-hard conservative. It is not clear to me at this time which he would choose for which position. I view this as a positive for him in my evaluation vis a vis the other GOP candidates. I’m not certain it would necessarily be a positive in the general election.

That said, it does seem worth pointing out that he’s publicly stated that he would want Dennis Kucinich to be part of any hypothetical Paul cabinet.Report

The “earmarking” process is a grotesque parody of a reasonable apportionment process, let’s all stipulate to that much of the argument. Yet this apportionment is well within the purview of Congress: if Congress doesn’t do it, the Executive branch will.

For all my deep reservations about Ron Paul, here’s one instance where I’m not sure we’re criticizing him properly. The earmarking process has been reformed substantially from the era of LBJ putting NASA in Houston and Robert Byrd putting the FBI in West Virginia.

It seems we want government officials to do their job but when they do, we get angry at them for being pushy power-grabbers. This is their job. Don’t like it? Who do you propose to run the apportionment process? You won’t like them any better, dammit.Report

Religious Institutions. Religious institutions may resume services subject to the following conditions, which apply to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, interfaith centers, and any other space, including rented space, where religious or faith gatherings are held: 1. Indoor religious gatherings are limited to no more than ten people. 2. Outdoor religious gatherings of up to 250 people are allowed. Outdoor services may be held on any outdoor space the religious institution owns, rents, or reserves for use. 3. All attendees at either indoor or outdoor services must maintain appropriate social distancing of six feet and wear face masks or facial coverings at all times. 4. There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service. 5. Collection plates or receptacles may not be passed to or between attendees. 6. There should be no hand shaking or other physical contact between congregants before, during, or after religious services. Attendees shall not congregate with other attendees on the property where religious services are being held before or after services. Family members or those who live in the same household or who attend a service together in the same vehicle may be closer than six feet apart but shall remain at least six feet apart from any other persons or family groups. 7. Singing is permitted, but not recommended. If singing takes place, only the choir or religious leaders may sing. Any person singing without a mask or facial covering must maintain a 12-foot distance from other persons, including religious leaders, other singers, or the congregation. 8. Outdoor or drive-in services may be conducted with attendees remaining in their vehicles. If utilizing parking lots for either holding for religious services or for parking for services held elsewhere on the premises, religious institutions shall ensure there is adequate parking available. 9. All high touch areas, (including benches, chairs, etc.) must be cleaned and decontaminated after every service. 10. Religious institutions are encouraged to follow the guidelines issued by Governor Hogan.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” the order says in a section delineating norms and restrictions on religious services.

The consumption of the consecrated species at Mass, at least by the celebrant, is an integral part of the Eucharistic rite. Rules prohibiting even the celebrating priest from receiving the Eucharist would ban the licit celebration of Mass by any priest.

CNA asked the Howard County public affairs office to comment on how the rule aligns with First Amendment religious freedom and free exercise rights.

Howard County spokesman Scott Peterson told CNA in a statement that "Howard County has not fully implemented Phase 1 of Reopening. We continue to do an incremental rollout based on health and safety guidelines, analysis of data and metrics specific to Howard County and in consultation with our local Health Department."

"With this said," Peterson added, "we continue to get stakeholder feedback in order to fully reopen to Phase 1."

The executive order also limits attendance at indoor worship spaces to 10 people or fewer, limits outdoor services to 250 socially-distanced people wearing masks, forbids the passing of collection plates, and bans handshakes and physical contact between worshippers.

In contrast to the 10-person limit for churches, establishments listed in the order that do not host religious services are permitted to operate at 50% capacity.

In the early days of the Coronavirus epidemic, there were hopes that the disease could be treated with a compound called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ is a long-established inexpensive medicine that is widely used to treat malaria. It also has uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. There had been some indications that HCQ could treat SARS virus infections by attacking the spike proteins that coronaviruses use to latch onto cells and inject their genetic material. Initial small-scale studies of the drug on COVID-19 patients indicated some positive effect (in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin). President Trump, in March, promoted HCQ as a game-changer and is apparently taking it as a prophylaxis after potentially being exposed by White House staff.

Initial claims of the efficacy of this therapy were a perfect illustration of why we base decisions on scientific studies and not anecdotes. By late March, Twitter was filled with stories of "my cousin's mother's former roommate was on death's door and took this therapy and miraculously recovered". But such stories, even assuming they are true, mean nothing. With COVID-19, we know that seriously ill people reach an inflection point where they either recover or die. If they died while taking the HCQ regimen, we don't hear from them because...they died. And if they recover without taking it, we don't hear from them because...they didn't take it. Our simian brains have evolved to think that correlation is causation. But it isn't. If I sacrificed a goat in every COVID-19 patient's room, some of them would recover just by chance. That doesn't mean we should start a massive holocaust of caprines.

However, even putting aside anecdotes, there were good reasons to believe the HCQ regimen might work. And given the seriousness of this disease and the desperation of those trying to save lives, it's understandable that doctors began using it for critically ill patients and scientists began researching its efficacy.

Why Trump became fixated on it is equally understandable. Trump has been looking for a quick fix to this crisis since Day One. Denial failed. Closing off (some) travel to China failed. A vaccine is months if not years away. So HCQ offered him what he wanted -- a way to fix this problem without the hard work, tough choices and sacrifice of stay-at-home orders, masks, isolation and quarantine. So eager were they to adopt the quick fix, the Administration made plans to distribute millions of doses of this unproven drug in lieu of taking more concrete steps to address the crisis.[efn_note]Although the claim that Trump stands to profit off HCQ sales does not appear to hold much water.[/efn_note]

This is also why certain fringe corners of the internet became fixated on it. There has arisen a subset of the COVID Truthers that I'm calling HCQ Truthers: people who believe that HCQ isn't just something that may save some lives but is, in fact, a miracle cure that it's only being held back so that...well, take your pick. So that Democrats can wreck the economy. So that Bill Gates can inject us with tracking devices. So that we can clear off the Social Security rolls. And this isn't just a US phenomenon nor is it all about Trump. Overseas friends tell me that COVID trutherism in general and HCQ trutherism in particular have arisen all over the Western World.

It's no accident that the HCQ Truthers seem to share a great deal of headspace with the anti-Vaxxers. It fills the same needs

In both cases, the idea was started by flawed studies. The initial studies out of China and France that indicated HCQ worked were heavily criticized for methodological errors (although note that neither claimed it was a miracle cure). Since then, larger studies have shown no effect.

HCQ trutherism offers an explanation for tragedy beyond the random cruelty of nature. Just as anti-vaxxers don't want to believe that sometimes autism just happens, HCQ Truthers don't want to believe that sometimes nature just releases awful epidemics on us. It's more comforting, in some ways, to think that bad happenings are all part of a plan by shadowy forces.

There is, however, another crazy side that doesn't get as much attention because their crazy is a bit more subtle. These are the people who have decided that, since Trump is touting the HCQ treatment, it must not work. It can not work. It can not be allowed to work. There is an undisguised glee when studies show that HCQ does not work and a willingness to blame HCQ shortages on Trump and only Trump.[efn_note]Not to mention the odd fish tank cleaner poisoning that has nothing to do with him.[/efn_note]

In between the two camps are everyone else: scientists, doctors and ordinary folk who just want to know whether this thing works or not, politics and conspiracy theories be damned. Well, last week, we got a big indication that it does not. A massive study out of the Lancet concluded that the HCQ regimen has no measurable positive effect. In fact, death rates were higher for those who took the regimen, likely due to heart arrhythmias induced by the drug.

So is the debate over? Can we move on from HCQ? Not quite.

First of all, the study is a retrospective study, looking backward at nearly 100,000 cases over the last four months. That's a massive sample that allows one to correct for potential confounding factors. But it's not a double-blind trial, so there may be certain biases that can not be avoided. In response to the publication, a group doing a controlled study unblinded some of their data (that is, they let an independent group look up who was getting the actual HCQ and who was getting a placebo). It did not show enough of a safety concern to warrant ending the study.

It's also worth noting that because this is an unproven therapy, it is usually being used on only the sickest patients (the odd President of the United States aside). It's possible earlier use of the drug, when the body is not already at war with itself, could help.

With those caveats in mind, however, this study at least makes it clear that HCQ is not the miracle cure some fringe corners of the internet are pretending it is. And it should make doctors hesitant in giving to people who already have heart issues.

As you can imagine, this has only fed the twin camps of derangement. The truther arguments tend to fall into the usual holes that truther theories do:

"How can this be a four-month study when we only learned about COVID in January!" The HCQ protocol started being used almost immediately because of previous research on coronaviruses.

"How come all of the sudden this safe medicine that people use all the time is dangerous?!" The side effects of HCQ have been well known for years and have always required consideration and management. They may be showing up more strongly here because it is being given to patients whose bodies are already under extreme stress. Also, azithromycin may amplify some of those side effects.

"They just hate Trump." Not everything is about Donald Trump. If it turned out that kissing Donald Trump's giant orange backside cured COVID, scientists would be the first ones telling people to line up and use chapstick.

The other camp's response has ranged from undisguised glee -- that is, joy at the idea that we won't be saving lives cheaply -- to bizarre claims that Trump should be charged with crimes for touting this unproven therapy.

(A perfect illustration of the dementia: former FDA Head Scott Gottlieb -- who has been a Godsend for objective analysis during the pandemic -- tweeted out the results of the RECOVERY unblinding yesterday morning and noted that it showed no increased safety risk. He was immediately dogpiled by one side insisting he was trying to conceal the miracle cure of HCQ and the other insisting he is a Trumpist doing the Orange Man's dirty work.)

In the end, the lunatics do not matter. Whether HCQ works or not, whether it is used or not, will be mostly determined by doctors and will mostly be based on the evidence we have in front of us. If HCQ fails -- and it's not looking good -- my only response will be massive disappointment. Had HCQ worked, it would have been a gift from the heavens. It is a well-known, well-studied drug that can be manufactured cheaply in bulk. Had it worked, we could have saved thousands of lives, prevented hundreds of thousands of long-term injuries and saved trillions of dollars. That it doesn't appear to work -- certainly not miraculously -- is not entirely unexpected but is also a tragedy.

{C1} The Christian Science Monitor looks at 1918 and how sports handled that pandemic, and the role it played in giving rise to college football.

"That's really what started the big boom of college football in the 1920s," said Jeremy Swick, historian at the College Football Hall of Fame. "People were ready. They were back from war. They wanted to play football again. There weren't as many restrictions about going out. You could enroll back in school pretty easily. You see a great level of talent come back into the atmosphere. There's new money. It started to get to the roar of the Roaring '20s and that's when you see the stadiums arm race. Who can build the biggest and baddest stadium?"

{C2} During times of rapid change, social science is supposed to be able to help lead the way or at least decipher what is going on. Or maybe not...

But while Willer, Van Bavel, and their colleagues were putting together their paper, another team of researchers put together their own, entirely opposite, call to arms: a plea, in the face of an avalanche of behavioral science research on COVID-19, for psychology researchers to have some humility. This paper—currently published online in draft format and seeding avid debates on social media—argues that much of psychological research is nowhere near the point of being ready to help in a crisis. Instead, it sketches out an “evidence readiness” framework to help people determine when the field will be.

{C3} There is a related story about AI - which is predisposed towards tracking slow change over time - is having trouble keeping up.

{C4} The Covid-19 does not bode well for higher education is not news. They may have a lot of difficulty opening up (and maybe shouldn't). An added wrinkle is kids taking a gap year, which is potentially a problem because those most able to pay may be least likely to attend.

{C5} People who can see the faults with abstinence only education fail to see how that logic (We shouldn't give guidance to people doing things we would rather they not do in the first place). Emily Oster argues that the extreme message of public health advocates to Just Stay Home is counterproductive.

When people are advised that one very difficult behavior is safe, and (implicitly or not) that everything else is risky, they may crack under the pressure, or throw up their hands. That is, if people think all activities (other than staying home) are equally risky, they figure they might as well do those that are more fun. If taking a walk at a six-foot distance from a friend puts me at very high risk, why not just have that friend and a bunch of others over for a barbecue? It’s more fun. This is an exaggeration, of course, but different activities carry very different risks, and conscientious civic leaders should actively help people choose among them.

{C6} A look at what canceling the football season will do to the little guys - non-power schools. Ironically, they may sustain less damage due to fewer financial obligations relying on the money that won't be coming in. Be that as it may, Fordham has disestablished its baseball program.

{C7} Bans on evictions and rental spikes could have the main effect of simply pushing out small investors, rather than protecting renters. In a more good-faith economy this would be less of an issue because landlords would work with tenants. Which some are, though I don't have too much faith about it being widespread.

{C8} Three cheers for Nick Saban. Football coaches are cultural leaders of a sort. One is about to become a senator in Alabama, even. What they do matters.

The American college experience for better or for worse revolves around the residency factor. We have turned college into a relatively safe place for young adults to the test the limits of freedom without suffering too many consequences. Better to miss a day of classes because you drank too much than to miss a day of an apprenticeship or job and get fired. College was cut short this semester because of COVID and colleges are freaking out about whether they can open up dorms in the fall. The dorms are big money makers and it is hard to justify huge tuition bucks for zoom lectures even for elite universities. Maybe especially for them. California State University announced that Fall 2020 is going to be largely online. My undergrad alma mater sent out an e-mail blast announcing their plan to reopen in the fall with "mostly" in person classes. The President admitted that the plan was a work in progress but it strikes me as a combination of common sense and extreme wishful thinking. The plan may include:

1. Staggered drop-off days to limit density as we return.

This sounds reasonable but only in a temporary way because eventually everyone will be back on campus, living in dorm rooms together, needing to use communal bathrooms and showers.

2. Students would be tested for COVID-19 on campus at least twice in the first 14 days.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as the testing is available. Our capacity for testing so far in this country has not been great.

3. Anyone experiencing symptoms would be tested immediately. Students who test positive would be cared for in a separate dormitory area where food would be brought to the room and where the student could still access classes remotely.

Nothing wrong here. Outbreaks of certain diseases are not unknown in the college setting. During my senior year, there was an outbreak of a rather nasty strain of gastroenteritis. Other universities have experienced meningitis outbreaks.

4. All students would take their temperature and report symptoms daily.

This one is also reasonable but is going to involve spying on students and coming up with a punishment mechanism. How will they make sure students are not lying?

5. We would also require that socializing be kept to a minimum in the beginning, with proper PPE (masks) and social distancing. As time went on, we would seek to open up more, and students could socialize and eat together in small groups.

I have no idea how they tend for this to happen and it sets of all my lawyer bells for carefully crafted language that attempts to answer a concern or question but also admits "we got nothing." Maybe today's students are more somber and sincere but you are going to have around 500 eighteen year olds who are away from their parents for the first time and another 1500 nineteen to twenty-one year olds who had their semester rudely interrupted and might now be reunited with boyfriends and girlfriends. Are they going to assign eating times for the dining hall and put up solo eating cubicles that get wiped down and disinfected after each use? Assign times to use laundry facilities in each dorm? Cancel the clubs? Cancel performances by the theatre, dance, and music departments?

I am sympathetic to my alma I love it but and realize that a lot of colleges and universities would take a real hit financially without residency. This includes universities with reasonable to very large endowments. Only the ones with hedge fund size endowments would not suffer but the last part of the plain sounds not fully thought out yet even if my college's current President admitted: "Life on campus will not look the same as it did pre-pandemic" The only way i see number 5 working is if requiring is read as "requiring."

Seems that the theory that Covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people has very shaky evidence in support of it. Turns out the case this assumption was made from was based on a single woman who infected 4 others. Researchers talked to the 4 patients, and they all said the patient 0 did not appear ill, but they could not speak to patient 0 at the time.

So they finally got to talk to her, and she said she was feeling ill, but powered through with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals.

Ten Second News

Today we couldn’t be happier to announce that Vox Media and New York Media are merging to create the leading independent modern media company. Our combined business will be called Vox Media and will serve hundreds of millions of audience members wherever they prefer to enjoy our work.

In a nation in turmoil, it's nice to have even a small bit of good news:

Representative Steve King of Iowa, the nine-term Republican with a history of racist comments who only recently became a party pariah, lost his bid for renomination early Wednesday, one of the biggest defeats of the 2020 primary season in any state.

In a five-way primary, Mr. King was defeated by Randy Feenstra, a state senator, who had the backing of mainstream state and national Republicans who found Mr. King an embarrassment and, crucially, a threat to a safe Republican seat if he were on the ballot in November.

The defeat was most likely the final political blow to one of the nation’s most divisive elected officials, whose insults of undocumented immigrants foretold the messaging of President Trump, and whose flirtations with extremism led him far from rural Iowa, to meetings with anti-Muslim crusaders in Europe and an endorsement of a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties.

King, you may remember, was stripped of his committee assignments last year when he defended white supremacism. Two years ago, he almost lost his Congressional seat in the general. That is, a seat that Republicans have held since 1986, usually win by double digits and a district Trump carried by a whopping 27 points almost came within a point or two of voting in a Democrat. That's how repulsive King had gotten.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Enjoy retirement, Congressman. Oops. Sorry. In January, it will be former Congressman.

Comment →

From the Daily Mail: Deadliest city in America plans to disband its entire police force and fire 270 cops to deal with budget crunch

The deadliest city in America is disbanding its entire police force and firing 270 cops in an effort to deal with a massive budget crunch.

...

The police union says the force, which will not be unionized, is simply a union-busting move that is meant to get out of contracts with current employees. Any city officers that are hired to the county force will lose the benefits they had on the unionized force.

Oak Park police say they are investigating “suspicious circumstances” after two attorneys — including one who served as a hearing officer in several high-profile Chicago police misconduct cases — were found dead in their home in the western suburb Monday night.

Officers were called about 7:30 p.m. for a well-being check inside a home in the 500 block of Fair Oaks Avenue, near Chicago Avenue, and found the couple dead inside, Oak Park spokesman David Powers said in an emailed statement. Authorities later identified them as Thomas E. Johnson, 69, and Leslie Ann Jones, 67, husband and wife attorneys who worked in Chicago.

The preliminary report from an independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family says the 46 year old man's death was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report.

Dr. Michael Baden and the University of Michigan Medical School's director of autopsy and forensic services, Dr. Allecia Wilson, handled the examination, according to family attorney Ben Crump.

Baden, who was New York's medical examiner in 1978 and 1979, had previously performed independent autopsies on Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer in Staten Island, New York, in 2014 and Michael Brown, who was shot by officers in Ferguson, Missouri, that same year.

Featured Comment

Oddly, the video was dropped by an attorney friend the men, because he thought it would exonerate them. He assumed when people saw Aubrey turn and try to defend himself, everyone would see what they did: a dangerous animal needing to be put down.